Let's begin with.... GINGRICH HAS NOT FOUGHT ON LIFE ISSUES
Gingrich: “My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion.” [Face The Nation, 4/9/1995]
He was absolutely right. Explain how he is wrong in his view?
Gingrich: Abortion “has diverted Republican energies and it has led the Republican party into a very dangerous period of focusing on what divides us rather than what unites us.” [Washington Post, 1/22/1990]
He’s absolutely right too. The TP movement is PROOF of that. The vast majority of the TP’s success is attributed to the fact that they focus on THREE very powerful issues that unite most, if not all, conservatives.
In a 2005 interview, Gingrich stated that abortion should be illegal, but was unsure about how to enforce that provision. He stated that punishing doctors who perform the procedure was preferable to punishing women who have an abortion.
In 1995, Congress put forth an amendment in response to Clinton administration actions that defined an abortion in response to rape or incest as medically necessary that allowed each state to opt out of this provision and decline funding. While Congressman Gingrich stated that he himself supported funding for cases of rape or incest, he supported the amendment.
In 2011, Congressman Gingrich supported an Ohio law that made abortions illegal after a detectable heart beat is present. His campaign literature for the 2012 Presidential election states that he supports reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, supports cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, and opposes federal funding for abortion.
While in office, Congressman Gingrich twice voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban.
The Hyde amendment states that federal funding for abortion cannot be used for abortion unless the abortion is medically necessary. In 1993 the Clinton administration made move to define the cases of rape and incest as medically necessary. House Republicans put forth an amendment to allow states to decline funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest. On March 2, 1995 Congressman Gingrich was quoted as supporting the amendment.
This is not an issue which is going away. Each side of the issue will try to find their best advantage in bringing it up. All we can do is try to find a common ground to hold ourselves together while we have the debate.
The actual wording of the amendment is identical to existing statutes and clarifies congressional intent, allowing but not requiring states to pay for abortions. I support the Istook amendment.
On April 9, 1995 Congressman Gingrich appeared on "Face the Nation" and noted that he supported funding for an abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother.
No. First of all, I think you should have funding in the case of rape or incest or life of the mother, which is the first step. ...
My personal view is that this is a country which is pro-choice but anti-abortion. There are remarkably few Americans who favor abortion as a contraception or who think of abortion as a trivial matter. And so I think we can have a pretty large area of civil discussion without it breaking down into automatic hostility."
PROTECTING LIFE AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
"There is no liberty without religious liberty” – Newt Gingrich
The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator” – the source of our rights - from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America.
Principles to protect life and religious liberty
- Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.
- Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government.
- End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.
- Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.
- Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.
- Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
- Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.
- Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.
Newt has also suggested in speeches and interviews that he believes it to be plausible to have Congress bypass the courts over abortion and define ‘life’ as beginning at conception. This would, as he suggests, place the unborn child into the category of citizen protected by the 14th Amendment.
I could continue, if you wish.
Pro-Life
Yes
"I think that abortion should not be legal, and I think that how you would implement that I'm not sure."
The American View, 2005
Federal ban on abortions
Adoption
Supports
And in that sense that we want to move the society as rapidly as we can that people should select adoption rather than abortion and that choosing abortion is not acceptable."
The American View, 2005
Parental notification
Supportive
“He backs parental notification before minors can have abortions”
New Hampshire Sunday News, May 15, 2011
Planned Parenthood
Against
“I think that Planned Parenthood should be defunded, and I think it's a very significant issue to say to people, 'Should your tax money go to pay the leading abortion provider in America?’”
Gingrich’s press release, 23 May 2011
Embryonic stem cell research
Against
Gingrich, his capacity as the Senior Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, together with Rick Tyler, wrote a critical piece on President Obama’s decision to “unilaterally lifted embryonic-stem-cell research restrictions” - NewsMax, 15 March 2009
THE STORY OF GINGRICH AND FREDDIE MAC
These are nice accusations and all…but what evidence do you have that Newt did anything but give advice to FDMC? Do you have an iota of proof that Newt or his firm ever did anything by way of lobbying FOR FDMC? If not, what you are suggesting is that a man should be berated for making money from a contract his firm made with another firm, just because that firm is FDMC and that firm chose to NOT take his advice and as a consequence FDMC and the mortgage industry collapsed. You want to blame Newt for the fact that FDMC didn’t take his advice. How stupid is that?
Freddie Mac say Gingrich was hired as a consultant to keep conservatives from tearing apart the company:
“Former Freddie Mac officials…say the former House speaker was asked to build bridges to Capitol Hill Republicans and develop an argument on behalf of the company’s public-private structure that would resonate with conservatives seeking to dismantle it.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/2011]
Gingrich earned almost $2m working for Freddie Mac:
Gingrich Was Paid Up To $1.8 Million By Freddie Mac. “Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement. The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.” [Bloomberg, 11/15/2011]
GINGRICH WAS PAID BY FREDDIE MAC AND DEFENDED THE COMPANY UNTIL THE BUBBLE BURST:
In early 2008, while still under contract, Gingrich said that going after those responsible for the subprime lending crisis was a bad idea:
“I was very jarred last night when Senator McCain talked about maybe some people need to be punished for the subprime mortgages. I don't -- I think if we started introducing a criminalization, class warfare model, we're going to wreck this economy. And I found what he said last night about going after some people, about they may need to be punished, I thought that illustrated a very bad understanding of the free market and how this world works.” [Hannity and Colmes, 1/31/2008]
Gingrich got paid by Freddie Mac up until the end, when the government seized the company:
“GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s $30,000-a-month consulting gig with Freddie Mac only ended after the housing meltdown forced the federal government to take over the failing mortgage giant.” [Politico, 11/17/2011]
Gingrich started criticizing Freddie Mac when they stopped paying him, talking about how close the company was to Democrats and Washington politicians:
“The speech that Senator McCain gave in which he outlined today very dramatic differences in how he would approach it and how Senator Obama would approach it -- and the difference between the Democratic Party's extraordinary closeness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two huge financial institutions that the government has temporarily taken over. I think you're going to see some very interesting fireworks over the next 46 days, and one of the questions is going to be whether or not Senator Dodd should step down as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee because, given his closeness to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it's inconceivable that he could be fair in writing a bill that protects the taxpayers.” [Fox News, 9/19/2008]
October 2008, Gingrich demanded that Obama give back all the campaign contributions he received from Freddie Mac:
“I'm very saddened that John McCain hasn't had the nerve and the coherence to go nose to nose with Obama, and force Obama to give back the money that he's taken from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, forced him to fire Franklin Raines, who after all got $90 million in six years while totally mismanaging Fannie Mae.” [Fox News, 10/10/2008]
This year, Gingrich didn’t deny that he wanted people to go to jail over being too close to Freddie Mac:
“Clearly, you're not saying they should go to jail?” GINGRICH: “Well, in Chris Dodd's case, go back to look at the Countryside deals. In Barney Frank's case, go back and look at the lobbyist who was close to Freddie Mac. All I'm saying is, everybody in the media who wants to go after the business community ought to start by going after the politicians who were at the heart of the sickness which is weakening this country.” [Bloomberg Debate, 10/12/2011]
Is that REALLY what Newt was saying? Is he really saying Frank should go to jail for being TOO CLOSE to FNMA and FDMC? You don’t think, perhaps, that he might be suggesting they go to jail for taking BRIBES from FDMC and FNMA in order to make sure that the Dodd/Frank bill didn’t do anything to regulate them? Nah…that’s not a crime, is it?
Gingrich said he would make his Freddie records public, but he has not:
“Freddie Mac is a quasi-government agency and sometimes its records are not considered public. Gingrich said that his campaign will make the records public ‘to the degree we can,’ although he and his national spokesman R.C. Hammond declined to say a timeline when such records would be available.” [Des Moines Register, 11/16/2011]
Yeah, you DO know what a confidentiality agreement is, right? He cannot give out information that FDMC will not agree for him to release.
Gingrich is incredibly saying he didn’t earn the Freddie Mac money – that his company, the “Gingrich group,” did instead:
“‘I didn’t take it,’ Gingrich said after an event at Harvard University when asked about reports that he collected nearly $2 million from Freddie Mac. He said the funds were paid to the Gingrich Group, his health care consulting firm, and he didn’t directly answer when asked if he would return the money to Freddie Mac.” [Boston Globe, 11/19/2011]
Give us one good reason why he should return the money? Did they request a refund? Did they sue and win judgment that his firm didn’t fulfill their contractual obligation? Why is it that a conservative is all for capitalism EXCEPT when it doesn’t suit their predisposed opinions about someone?
“Not my earnings”??
Yeah, you know…like when a corporation makes money…it belongs to the corporation, not the individual.
“Newt Gingrich told reporters … that it ‘would be my hope’ that the Gingrich Group will release information about how much money it made from home mortgage giant Freddie Mac. … He insisted that the $1.6 million he reportedly got from the controversial quasi-governmental entity were ‘not my earnings’ and that the decision to reveal the details is not his call.” [National Journal, 11/18/2011]
It is called a confidentiality agreement. And whether Newt knew the full extent of the contract provisions is completely irrelevant. It was, as I’ve said a hundred times, a case of two private sector companies doing business together. You don’t like how FDMC spent the money, talk to them. Newt has made it clear that it is his contracts with ALL firms with whom he consulted that neither he nor anyone in his firm would lobby on their behalf. He was hired not to give his stamp of approval on various companies’ plans but to give his opinion and recommendations regarding issues on the table. If they didn’t want to take his advice, that was their choice.
GINGRICH’S 2006 IMMIGRATION STUDY
Gingrich: “Anything less than requiring people who are working here illegally to return home to apply for a worker visa is amnesty.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
And how is this different than his espousing of the Red Card Solution? What’s the point to be made here? Are you intent of making it seem like his ‘humane’ view on illegals who’ve been here for decades and have roots here is amnesty? Would it make you feel better to be able to call it that? If so, then tell me…how many illegals would you think (of the 11 million or so living here) would qualify under this ‘human’ part of his overall plan? And exactly how does this ‘human’ part of his plan differ from that of Michelle Bachmann or virtually all the other candidates?
Unlike now, Gingrich wrote that those working in the U.S. illegally must return to their home country first and that visas shouldn’t be applied for from the U.S. “under any circumstances”:
“Doing it the right way means that all those who are currently working in the United States illegally and who wish to apply for the worker visa program must return to their home country and apply. Application for the worker visa program should not be permitted in the United States under any circumstances.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
Unlike now, Gingrich once said people could not “be allowed to start their time in the United States by breaking the law”:
“Amnesty undermines the rule of law. As we learned from New York City’s successful turnaround in the 1990s, disrespect for the law, even for minor infractions, leads to lawlessness. This is as true for immigration laws as it is for urban crime. Individuals cannot be allowed to start their time in the United States by breaking the law.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
Great, he’s evolved. I like that he has on this issue. I think it is fundamentally insane to think that you can approach 11 million illegals all the same way. I am proud to support his ten point plan on immigration.
Gingrich said English should be America’s “primary language,” but not the “only language”:
“Maintaining English as the primary language of America. English is not and never has been the only language in America. We have a long tradition of people speaking many languages in their local community and with other immigrants. But English has been and should remain our primary language.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
Might wanna get this one right. Newt actually has always advocated that English be the official language of GOVERNMENT. He understands that the country as a whole incorporates dozens, if not hundreds of languages.
Gingrich said illegal immigrants’ status “keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities”:
“Millions of people are working here illegally because Americans are hiring them. They have jobs in your neighborhood… The illegal status of these hard working people makes them vulnerable to criminals and keeps them from playing responsible roles in our communities.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
Gingrich called the U.S. immigration bureaucracy “heartless”:
“Adding insult to this state of affairs is an immigration bureaucracy that has been slow, cumbersome, rude, heartless, and incompetent in the discharge of its duties.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
It IS heartless AND insane. One of the very reasons why more than half the illegals are here strictly to work (and frankly, have no interest in making America their home nation) is the fact that it is utterly impossible for a foreign national to obtain a work visa quickly or even to find work on US soil while living in their home country. If you haven’t read the Red Card Solution white paper, you should.
Gingrich called for a work visa program for illegal immigrants that could lead to citizenship:
“A worker visa program should be established to make it easier for people to enter the country legally and to work here at a specific job for a set of period of time. This program should not be an automatic qualification for citizenship, though eventual citizenship could be held out as an opportunity.” [AEI Working Paper, 4/26/2006]
And what exactly is the problem with this? Please do tell me why someone who comes here on a work visa should not be allowed to get into the proper lines whereby they can make the decision to make America their home country. Is there anything in that statement that says that Newt is advocating they get to cut to the front of the line or even to the middle of the line? No… You really should figure out why it is you find yourself so prejudicial regarding Newt. It honestly didn’t even take much effort to refute every note of these posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment